07-05-97 Electronic Filings on Internet Domain Names

###
Number: 48
From: "Steve & Kelly Longsworth" longswos@mashell.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 11:03pm
Subject: Control of DNS
As an Active duty Army SYSADMIN with my own Domain Controller I have no
problems what-so-ever with the current Naming Conventions. They allow for
standardized naming conventions and are easily understandable. The .mil /
.gov / .com / .edu /........ is an intuitive convention, However if the
.com crowd want to fight over who gets the "really HOT" names let them and
let them control (i.e. sell or lease) them with a percentage of the
proceeds being returned to those who built the original backbone of the
entire system. A mandated pricing schedule would prevent gouging and or
exorbitant prices (i.e. first come first served for $X.xx per name)
/S/
Steven W. Longsworth
SFC, USA
Systems Administrator
504th Military Police Bn.
###
Number:49
From: "TERRENCE FITZPATRICK" TLFP@msn.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 10:17pm
Subject: Internet domain names
Please people, listen carefully.
Neither the Internet nor the World Wide Web is broken so please DON'T TRY TO
FIX IT. Stay on it, if you like, but stay out of it. It's not yours to mess
with. It belongs to the people of the world.
Terrence FitzPatrick
TLFP@msn.com
###
Number:50
From: "Alex M. Hochberger" ahochber@iname.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'"
Date: 7/5/97 2:30pm
Subject: Domain Names
Allow competition for the top level domains. Require the root registers
to point to one another, and allow multiple organizations to support TLDs.
There may be a way to only allow one company to use one TLD (for technical
reasons), but even that could be avoided. Lets bring the costs down and
increase competition to allow more TLDs and easier names to remember.
Alex Hochberger
Citrix Systems, Inc.
Pine Crest School '97
M.I.T. '01
###
Number:51
From: "Andrew B. Cencini" andrew@cencini.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 1:24pm
Subject: Request for Comments
Hello,
I am responding regarding the recent request for comments regarding domain
name administration. In my humble opinion, I feel that the methods,
standards and practices of assigning TLD's, as well as the overall
administration of domain names, is far behind the current paradigm of
technology on the Internet.
I will focus my opinions solely on the current administration of domain
names in the United States - more specifically, the ".com, .net, .org,
.edu, and .us" domains. Also, my comments will reflect my feelings towards
how the registries have handled the management of public domain records.
First, I feel most strongly about how poor a job that NSI (The InterNIC)
has done in their administration of domains, as well as how arcane the
standards and policies are that they use as "guidelines."
The InterNIC, being a private commercial organization, under government
contract, has a threefold obligation. First and foremost, they have a
commitment to their customers, without whom they would be nonexistant.
Secondly, they have a commitment to helping manage the Internet in a way
which would most benefit the organizations and users of it. Lastly, they
have a responsibility to satisfactorily complete the above requirements, as
well as meet the conditions put forth by the NSF in their cooperative
agreement. Note, that clearly there is no single body of interest that
must be satisfied here, but rather a commitment to many groups of people.
CLearly, in my many experiences with the InterNIC, I have found my dealings
to be frustrating, maddening, and, quite frankly, to be excessively slow.
One could compare the service of the InterNIC to the judicial system - it's
slow and it rarely works. If the InterNIC was in the business of
registering domains for free, then one could not complain. As was said in
Shakespeare's great play, Hamlet, "Ay, therein lies the rub."
The InterNIC charges a fairly outrageous fee of $100US per domain for 2
years of "service." As a consumer, and as a member of the Internet
community, I feel more than justified in receiving service, promptly and
courteously, in return for my compensation of $100.
I have received no such "service" or courteous treatment in my experience
with InterNIC.
The solution? Well, that is difficult to determine. Clearly, the InterNIC
should be used as an example of what "not to do" when managing a domain
registry. Their database services, customer services, and
assignment/dispute services are not really services, but more a haphazard
"system" by which more energy is spent "maintaining" the system, than
actually serving customers. A new domain registry would have the following
properties, and their contract should require, amongst many other things,
that these stipulations are met:
1) A clear, current policy for the assignment of domains is established,
in plain English, and an appeal policy that is swift yet thorough is in
place for the rare case in which two parties wish for the same domain.
2) A fee structure consistent with the level of service is in place.
3) An online registration system that is user-friendly, simple to use, and
much more thorough "where it counts" so far as validation is concerned
regarding the usage requirements of the domain.
4) Said registration system is available on a high-speed connection to the
Internet, and is publicly accessible through many means 24x7. The site,
even during peak hours should not be excessively slow or down.
5) The database administration and design should be done logically and
thoughtfully, keeping in mind the considerations of the customer while
allowing easy administration.
6) Simple and intuitive tools through which the database may be searched
by many criteria while maintaining the highest of confidenatiality
7) Courteous and prmpt service by phone, email or other means of
communication
8) A wide variety of easy, common payment options, including check, credit
card and digital cash ONLINE.
One of the above stipluations raises one other issue regarding the
InterNIC's operation which I must personally comment on. The current
system of assigning universities only to the "edu" domain is stupid and
inconsiderate. Also, the policy of allowing "free" domains in the edu TLD
is quite silly. Recently, I applied for an "edu" domain for a high school
with which I now am doing some Internet work. All of the schools in the
area of equal merit have an "edu" domain, and we assumed we would be given
the same. To make an extremely long and angering story short, after 6
months of form-letters and, quite frankly, rude and demeaning
correspondence from various InterNIC representatives, we appealed to the
IANA, who rendered a decision in virtually 48 hours following our final
submission to them.
In the end, the IANA, whom I feel have done an excellent job managing and
overseeing many aspects of the Internet, overturned one of their own RFC's
in favor of our case. That RFC, which was written 3 years ago, is what the
InterNIC uses as a "guideline" as ***** (name witheld) from the InterNIC
repeatedly told us as we were repeatedly turned away, despite the large
case in which such a "guideline" must be reconsidered.
By not allowing schools in general to be registered in the edu domain
(currently, less than 5000 are in the edu domain, last time I checked), it
somehow reduces the integrity of the institution by considering it as an
"organization." It would be much like requiring an ISP to register in the
"com" domain since they also sell T-shirts touting their services.
Given that also all of the adjacent "org, com and net" domains were taken
by "domain pirates" selling those domains, we had no other domains. It
seemed that the InterNIC did no such research to verify that information,
but rather suggested an alternate "org" domain name which also was in use
(and was quite ugly, to boot). In short, that policy should be seriously
re-evaluated given the current trend of Internet affairs.
All in all, had I a choice of domain registries, I would never have dealt
with the InterNIC. Enough said. Be my comments registered above. One
final parting comment would be about the management of the US domain.
While the management of the US domain is a bit arcane, and could use a
touch-up so far as policy administration goes, I found the people I worked
with to be some of the nicest most generous, conscientious people who were
knowledgeable about their work, and made every possible effort to
assist in my requests. I found I even learned from some of my
correspondences! I feel that the registrars of the US domain, (doing the
job for FREE, nonetheless) are doing a superb job, and deserve more funding
and a policy upgrade.
I apoligize for the long-winded and rambling note, but thank you for
registering my comments.
Cheers,
Andrew Cencini
Cencini Computer Services
andrew@cencini.com
###
Number:52
From: Frank fb@badamitv.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 12:38pm
Subject: Domain Names.
Open bidding in each state of the U.S. and have multi companies involved
in the Domain process. The cost of a Domain Name should not be more
than $10. per person or business.
###
Number: 53
From: "David E. Johnson" djohnson@goldrush.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 11:43am
Subject: comment on upcoming internet changes
The internet began with scientists and government entities and
consequently is incredibly secular. It now seems to be fueled by business
interests. It would be refreshing if the powers that be could create a
domain name or category that is exclusively for the religious community.
David E. Johnson
###
Number: 54
From: "David_H" david_h@webworldinc.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 11:06am
Subject: Domain Names
Yes you should add more names.
And add something like .PER for personal names (private individuals)
And all Domain names should be """"FREE""""" - or at most a one time
processing fee of 'not' more that $10.00. - Somebody is making millions off
of us, and is not really
fair, partly because there is no compition.
Any name that is a registered trademark with the US or other country's
trademark
office should automatically have the right to that name. (maybe with the
extention,
'.REG' , for registered.
Thank you
###
Number: 55
From: mark2 mark2@yourgallery.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 11:02am
Subject: domain names
Stay out of it. The Government has NO place being involved in this and
many more issues.
STAY OUT. STAY IN BUGET. LEAVE AMERICA ALONE, WE ARE FINE
WITHOUT YOU.
MARK GIERT
407 ABNER CRUZE RD
KNOXVILLE TN
37920
###
Number: 56
From: Mark Lautenschlager MarkL@pobox.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 8:54am
Subject: Domain name issue
Gentlemen,
My input on this matter is simple. I am a consumer of Internet services,
not a supplier. I am only interested in one matter--how easy is it to find
the site you're looking for on the Net?
Right now, if I am looking for a company's web site, it's a safe bet that
"www.company name goes here.com" will yield positive results. When these
new top-level domain names are introduced, will I have to try .web and
.info, also?
If you make the Internet more difficult to navigate, you will stifle its
growth. Adding more top-level domains is fine, but you MUST PROVIDE SOME
EASY WAY FOR USERS OF THE INTERNET TO FIND THE SITE THEY ARE SEEKING.
If such a mechanism cannot be devised, then leave the present system alone.
Thank you.
###
Number: 57
From: Matt mattgr@geocities.com>
To: "'dns@ntia.doc.gov'" dns@ntia.doc.gov>
Date: 7/5/97 4:38am
Subject: Internet Domain Name Comments
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a 27 year old Software Test Lead at Microsoft in Redmond, Washington.
I first started messing with the net on a Linux box 4 years ago.
Here are my recommendations:
Don't be US centric. Make all URLs have a country specifier. Let companies
choose their designator. Maybe Australia wants to be OZ and not AU
http://company.com.us
ftp://company.com.oz
URLs should not contain protocol specfic information. Take out the www/ftp
etc. Let the server look at the protocol and redirect as necessary.
http://www.company.com.us really says it twice doesn't it?
Figure out more nets. net, com, edu, mil, why not lib (for library), lab
(for research lab). Com really needs to be broken out.
GET ISPs OUT OF COM and put them into NET. COM is for COMpanies. NET is for
companies that provide NET access.
If you need any major problems solved, just let me know. I have a pretty
darn good sense of the right way to do things ;)
-Matt
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/5444/
###
Number: 58
From: Ian Ellis ian@iglou.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 3:39am
Subject: Domain name registration cost.
$50 per year seems exorbitant - especially for a monopoly. Who chose
that amount?
Although $50 may be a sneeze in a bucket to McDonalds, small companies
and groups are hit much harder.
###
Number: 59
From: "Michael McLeod" alie4251@email.msn.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 1:18am
Subject: domain names
the federal government should help set laws regarding the internet however
with reguard to who handles a cental regestry of names
i would like to see a commission funded strictly from registrations
made up of members of various countries kind of like the UN but for the
internet
domain names would be purchased and renewed thru this agency and laws and
regulations and other areas of interest to the web would be placed as there
role also
though there recomendations would not be law the should be able to provide
Congress
and other fed agencies with recomendations that might become law and in
that process
also request responses at a central regestry where by votes could be
tallied from the
internet public as to yea/nay votes on any recommendations they will pass
along to congress via the agency their by allowing a public vote and only
one vote per regestered domain name. as well as a general vote at large to
get a response from the internet communit(users)
###
Number: 60
From: Joyce jbulwinkle@geocities.com>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 7/5/97 12:18am
Subject: Domain Names and IP's
I was reading someone's entry that said to make all XXX pages with the
extension .xxx That is a great idea, and could be less cumbersome to
make Programs to cut out the site, by simply telling it to block all
sites marked .xxx It would also be easier to have more Internet
Protocols other than zzz.zzz.zzz.zzz where zzz is a number in the range
of 0 to 255. As we know, A lot of people (mostly ISP's) purchase a Full
C. So they have say 199.73.4.zzz. They take up 256 of the IP's and
probably do not even use them all. There has to be an easier way of
managing IP's. Possibly to increase zzz from 255 to 999? If that is in
any way possible than it would be helpful.
07-08-97